Seen this yet ? Laser turntable...

[jblnut]

Yes, some mad scientists have figured out how to read record grooves with lasers. The results ?

http://www.elpj.com/


Very interesting technology at a price that's out of this world...


jblnut

[JBLnsince1959]

I always wondered if that was possible.. interesting, I couldn't find the price tho ( I must be looking at it and missing it)

[jblnut]

I always wondered if that was possible.. interesting, I couldn't find the price tho ( I must be looking at it and missing it)

Pricing is at the bottom of this page - better sit down...

http://news.designtechnica.com/featured_article21_page6.html (http://news.designtechnica.com/featured_article21_page6.html)

[R Beardsley]

When John Kennedy died in an air crash, I told a friend that I can take comfort in my poverty knowing that I will never get killed flying my own airplane. It's a nice idea, and I'm happy for those who will now be able to hear the dirt on their LP's more clearly :blink:

[4313B]

Oh good! It will play all my 45's! :bouncy:

[JBLnsince1959]

Thanks for pointing that out. At that price $15,000 to $19,000 I'm sure they've hit the "sweet Spot" on pricing and EVERYONE will rush out and get one. :D

still it's very interesting... I've day-dreamed about such a thing from time to time... Sure would like to hear it.

[Titanium Dome]

I gotta say, I remember something like a five-beam laser phono in the 1980s. Doesn't seem that new, though I'm sure the tech is improved and the price is much higher.

[Zilch]

Indeed, it's been around a while. See the history link on the website....

[JBLnsince1959]

I gotta say, I remember something like a five-beam laser phono in the 1980s. Doesn't seem that new, though I'm sure the tech is improved and the price is much higher.

Well maybe we'll get lucky and see one of the old 80's models on ebay. I can see the ad now " laser not working, power cord gone, doesn't seem to affect the sound tho, sounds great" ;)

[dancing-dave]

Thing I don't like about the laser turntables is that you can't play colored, printed or clear vinyl. I have a few records that are critical to my vinyl collection that are such and with a $19k turntable I would feel happy if I could play them too. Thus I would rather pony up for a decent needle based deck and use the rest of my money to get more vinyl.

[JBLnsince1959]

Indeed, it's been around a while. See the history link on the website....

Well, you have to understand that I'm in Kansas and it takes while for new things to show up. In fact it's was only a few years ago we learned about this new "High Fidelity Stereo Sound". Boy, was it great getting away from just mono, but damn, I had to buy another speaker!

and to top it off.....a few days ago I learned that my C-35's aren't the newest thing. Boy, technology just doesn't stand still... what's next? a Dick Tracy type telephone that you can carry with you? I'll bet that's not to far off in the future :D

[Titanium Dome]

what's next? a Dick Tracy type telephone that you can carry with you? I'll bet that's not to far off in the future :D


OMG, a telephone that traces what? :jawdrop:

[JBLnsince1959]

OMG, a telephone that traces what? :jawdrop:

:rotfl: :rotfl:

[morbo!]

ive seen 1 on ebay but still well over $10,000 aud
id buy the largest amp i could for that kind of cash and put up with a cd

[Fred Sanford]

A friend of mine is a TV/Movie producer, and when he was working on a project for the History Channel we had some interesting conversations about the archival of audio recordings. First, there's a number of folks that are primarily interested in preserving the "object", the disc or cylinder or tape reel that was used to make the recording. Playing these "objects", even to hear them and re-record them and thus preserve & share the performance that was recorded, degrades them to some degree (sometimes to the point of destroying them) and should therefore be avoided or not allowed. Others feel that the audio recording is what should be preserved, and being able to share it and archive it is worth the potential degradation. From there, the arguments lead to archival format (digital/analog, bitrate, file format, etc.) in regards to expense, format & playback machinery longevity & popularity, archival storage expense and longevity, blah blah blah. Then you get into debates on noise redution, eq'ing, hiss & pop removal, bridging blanks (some of these records look like jigsaw puzzles with pieces missing) and so on.

In the record album realm, we talked about these laser players, and another conceivably more expensive but non-destructive recording method- topographical photography. There's got to be a way to "record" the topography of the disc & interpret that, no? Seemed possible to me, but a huge allocation of resources at this point.

Fun stuff, some cool conversations. The show ended up interesting enough, but not nearly long enough to delve into much of it:

http://tinyurl.com/a5nay

je

[morbo!]

A friend of mine is a TV/Movie producer, and when he was working on a project for the History Channel we had some interesting conversations about the archival of audio recordings. First, there's a number of folks that are primarily interested in preserving the "object", the disc or cylinder or tape reel that was used to make the recording. Playing these "objects", even to hear them and re-record them and thus preserve & share the performance that was recorded, degrades them to some degree (sometimes to the point of destroying them) and should therefore be avoided or not allowed. Others feel that the audio recording is what should be preserved, and being able to share it and archive it is worth the potential degradation. From there, the arguments lead to archival format (digital/analog, bitrate, file format, etc.) in regards to expense, format & playback machinery longevity & popularity, archival storage expense and longevity, blah blah blah. Then you get into debates on noise redution, eq'ing, hiss & pop removal, bridging blanks (some of these records look like jigsaw puzzles with pieces missing) and so on.

In the record album realm, we talked about these laser players, and another conceivably more expensive but non-destructive recording method- topographical photography. There's got to be a way to "record" the topography of the disc & interpret that, no? Seemed possible to me, but a huge allocation of resources at this point.

Fun stuff, some cool conversations. The show ended up interesting enough, but not nearly long enough to delve into much of it:

http://tinyurl.com/a5nay

je



Records were always crap. Do you think they used records in a studio?
no most stuff at least in the last 50 years till the advent of digital was recorded on a real to real.
Go look at the specs on one of these baby`s and you might be really suprised.
Records like the standard tape deck was just for the mass public a trade off between true quality and affordability.
So unless you talking the "orignial" source which would never be a record
any better way of reading it would always be welcome in my eyes and i suspect many others here

thank god 4 digital (but only to a point) van morrison lives
from memory
tape deck 4 track
the 8 track 8 track
the real to real 16 track

morbo!

[Fred Sanford]

Records were always crap.

Not true.

Do you think they used records in a studio?

Sure they did, it was all they had for quite a long time, and the best they had until tape-based recording evolved for a while.

no most stuff at least in the last 50 years till the advent of digital was recorded on a real to real.

Recording on these cylinders started in the late 1800's, I was discussing much more than the last 50 years. Reel-to-reel tapes also need to be archived, multi-track masters and mixed masters. Same or similar debates for them, playing them degrades them to some degree, and the playback machines differ in format, so machines need to be located and maintained & that costs $$$. Older tapes also often need to be processed or heat-treated in order to have them play at all.

Go look at the specs on one of these baby`s and you might be really suprised.

I've owned at least a dozen reel-to-reel machines, and used many others. Quite familiar with them.

Records like the standard tape deck was just for the mass public a trade off between true quality and affordability.

Check your history, tapes came later than discs (1930s or later, I think). I'd have to say portability was a large factor in the development of popular tape formats as well, cassettes & 8-tracks were less fragile than open reels and obviously appealed to the masses & the industry in that way as well.

So unless you talking the "orignial" source which would never be a record

(not true)

any better way of reading it would always be welcome in my eyes and i suspect many others here

...but, if it isn't a record disc, what alternate methods are you thinking of?

thank god 4 digital (but only to a point) van morrison lives
from memory
tape deck 4 track
the 8 track 8 track
the real to real 16 track

morbo!

je

Some quick searches found these if you're curious:


http://www.tinfoil.com/ (http://www.tinfoil.com/)

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html

[jblnut]

Records were always crap. morbo!


My, my...nothing like putting your foot into your mouth and swallowing your whole leg too... :)

You've obviously never heard a good vinyl setup.

Your loss....

jblnut

[Zilch]

Deja vu ... not to worry - puberty will pass.

[Eventually.... ;) ]

See also June, 2005 AES Journal:

ENGINEERING REPORTS

Reconstruction of Recorded Sound from an Edison Cylinder Using Three-Dimensional Noncontact Optical Surface Metrology
Vitaliy Fadeyev, Carl Haber, Christian Maul, John W. McBride, and Mitchell Golden 485
Audio information stored in the undulations of a groove in a mechanical sound carrier, such as a cylinder or disc phonograph record, may be reconstructed, without contact, by measuring the groove shape and position using precision optical metrology methods and digital image processing. This report describes the first three-dimensional reconstruction of recorded sound from a mechanical carrier using this approach. The source material, a celluloid Edison cylinder, was scanned using color-coded confocal microscopy techniques. The results and prospects of this approach are discussed.

[Fred Sanford]

I tried not to sound like a sarcastic old man in my response, tried really hard- essentially, I could have said that the relative quality of the original format is not the question in archival, just getting the best or only copy of something and preserving it is the key.

Not that I'm calling anyone else a sarcastic old man or anything.

Not that I'm even old or anything (cue Monty Python sound byte "I'm thir'y seven, I'm not old!"). That quote was funny until I turned 40:blink: .

je

[morbo!]

Wow them old cilinders are awsome. Sounded better than some records ive heard!
p.s dont get me wrong i do like records i have travelling willburs (vol 1)on vinal and love that
And dislike cd`s as well. They scratch way to easily atleast in my hands
I dont mind my hard drive though! seems not to degrade now matter how many times i play a song
And how about somone who played their records on a bad setup with a crappy needle ive heard records that were basically unlistenabe!
and have earned $1000`s updating people records for them so i heard alot from greek records to some early aussie records
In australia the brittish records were thicker with a better sound than the flimsy aus records

morbo!

[Baron030]

Back on Nov. 12, 2004, I heard a public lecture at the Fermilab national accelerator, entitled: Imaging the Voices of the Past: Using Physics to Restore Early Sound Recordings.
It was given by Dr. Carl Haber, Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Old recording are optically scanned and then optically enhanced to remove the surface imperfections before converting them to a digital CD format. The work that he is doing is very impressive and he has gotten some big attention from the Library of Congress. Check out the following link:

http://www.loc.gov/preserv/tops/haber2005.html (http://www.loc.gov/preserv/tops/haber2005.html)

[Fred Sanford]

Great stuff, this is fascinating. Thanks for the links, sorry if I sort of hijacked the thread...

je

[morbo!]

sorry if I sort of hijacked the thread...

je

Im not.
That sure a cool site baron.


morbo!
thanks all for teaching the ignorant! namely me:D

[sdaniel]

Until it can play a stack of LP's, or at least until it will play side two without my having to get up.

S

[Rolf]

Really guys...http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/smile.gif

I am the first to admit that the CD is not the perfect medium. But really...it does sound better than a vinyl record on a record player! I am not talking about most of todays CD's with "artists" who make som "mumbo jumbo" computer made sounds (some of them can be quite fun to listen to thow) but good recordings from artists and studios who really care for what they do. Unfortunately, there is not many who does today.

It does not really matters if the recording is analog or digital. You might be able to hear some tape noise on older (< 70's) good analog recordings converted to digital, but compared to the noise from a needle digging on a vinyl record it is almost nothing.

Unless you are playing some really heavy rock, you will always hear the "hiss, plop and scratching" using a vinyl disc on a record player, no matter how good the player is.

To make a comment on what is the subject of this thread, the Laser Turntable, I do not know. Never heard it, or any other laser reading vinyl machine. Just one question: Why?http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/blink.gif We got the digital medium, and the only reason to buy such a player must be to take care of your old vinyl recordings for sentimental reasons.http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/applaud.gif My advise is to buy new cd's with your old recordings. You can buy a lot of cd's for $15-$18000.http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/icons/icon14.gif

I could go on a long time with this vinyl/cd stuff, but I stop with this little story:

First we had live musik. Then we got "Mary had a little lamb" -- and people get mad, saying: "crap crap". After a while we got a speaker: "crap crap". Suddenly we got stereo: "Oh no!" Mono is the best! .. "crap crap". Then we got the digital: "NO, NO, NO" ... "Analog is the best" "crap, crap".... I wonder what is the next making us say: "Digital is the best" ... "crap crap".http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif

.... Why are we so afraid of all new tecnology? ... http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/banghead.gif

A big smile to you all from

Rolf